This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon has been served notice that the mural on her back fence violates the city's graffiti prohibitions.

13-year-old Becca McMahon, daughter of Toronto City Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon's poses in front of a mural she helped create on the back of the family’s fence a few yeas prior. (TORONTO STAR / TARA WALTON)

Toronto Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon's children and a family friend painted this mural on their back alley fence five years ago; now it's been targeted as prohibited graffiti by city bylaw staff. (TARA WALTON / TORONTO STAR) | Order this photo

Don’t City of Toronto graffiti inspection agents have bigger fish to fry than those swimming on Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon’s back fence?

Apparently not.

A mural of giant fish, small fish, a whale, and a bug-eyed crab and lobster — all depicted against a blue background — have grabbed the attention of the City of Toronto Municipal Licensing and Standards branch. It sent two registered letters Tuesday to the Ward 32, Beaches-East York councillor and her husband, Jim McMahon, advising that they have objectionable graffiti on the alley-facing fence behind their house, in the area of Woodbine and Danforth Aves. It’s in violation of the Toronto Municipal Code, chapter 485, graffiti.

They were told in the letters that they could appeal the ruling to the city’s Graffiti Panel, which was set up last year and makes decisions on whether something is allowable “art’’ or prohibited graffiti. If the McMahons don’t appeal, or get rid of the mural — which was crafted five or six years ago by the McMahons’ children, along with a family friend who’s an artist — it will be removed by the city and the costs added to the family’s municipal tax bill.

They have until April 9 to comply or appeal.

Article Continued Below

McMahon said the notice “irks’’ her. She said she’s been trying to get the city to crack down on people who may be failing to abide by various city regulations that protect trees. “We don’t seem to have people for that, but we have resources for a mural in a back alleyway.’’ She also questioned the cost of sending registered letters to both herself and her husband, who are co-owners.

In an email, Bruce Hawkins, city spokesman for the city’s municipal licensing and standards branch, confirmed that it’s common practice to send these notices either by registered mail or have them served personally to property owners.

McMahon intends to appeal the notice of violation to the city’s Graffiti Panel.

“We’re not taking it down,’’ she said.

McMahon’s daughter, Becca, now 13, says she doesn’t understand why anyone’s objecting to the mural. She was 8 years old when she and her brother, Liam, who’s now 15, painted it, along with the family friend.

“I think it’s kind of cool ... I think we should be allowed to do that. It’s on our property,’’ said Becca.

McMahon’s husband, Jim, told the Star he thinks the notice they got from the city is a “little crazy. It’s not like it’s on Danforth Ave. It’s in a back alleyway.’’

Jim McMahon said someone has added a few “tags’’ on the mural. “But they’re fairly small,’’ he said, and not really noticeable. It all seems like “bureaucracy gone awry,’’ he said.

According to a 2011 report to council, the city spends more than $1 million per year to clean up graffiti and enforce rules.

The city defines graffiti art as markings made to a property that are approved by the owner and which esthetically enhance the surface and the general surroundings, with regard to the character and standards of the community. Graffiti vandalism, on the other hand, includes markings made without a property owner’s permission or which are not exempted or regularized by the city, or anything that incites hatred or violence or contains offensive language.

In addition to getting rid of graffiti if a property owner fails to do the work — and passing those costs on — the city also has the option of taking legal action. The fine for a first offence by an individual in violation of the graffiti clause can be as high as $5,000.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com